Seeking a More Enlightened Worldview

I started this website just over a year ago as a way to promote my ideas, which I believe can be quite helpful to people who already have some sort of freethinking persuasion and are seeking to form a more developed and comprehensive worldview that is somewhere between traditional religion and strict secularism. I started with the basics of modern Deism and theories of natural rights and sought to incorporate these and other concepts into what I call “a more enlightened worldview”.

The main areas of this site that are mostly informative tell of the basics. I put in the forum to allow people to let me know what they think about the many topics covered within this site. I have also written a blog posting every week for the last year. The subjects ranged from Deism to ethical theory to specific moral issues to autobiographical descriptions of my own religious experiences and how my views changed over time, which were recorded in the series “Why I am not a Christian” and “Freethinking Awakenings”.

With this posting, this blog will be on hiatus for a while. I am focusing now on refining my writings to the point where I can get them published in academic journals or by a university, which would probably earn me a PhD if I am successful. As you might imagine, this is a very intensive and time consuming project. I am actually narrowing my focus for this effort on my new theory of phenomenology and the use of my new methodology to provide more reliable evidence for things that are beyond the reach of science but I believe are still very real, such as the experience of consciousness, the soul, and a foundation of morality that includes natural rights.

I know I will complete this eventually, and whether or not it is accepted by the academic community, I will still find ways of making these concepts more accessible and understandable to a more general audience and I will update this website when I am ready for that. Also when I am done with this phenomenology thesis, I will be able to incorporate it into my more more general worldview thesis. I can't take the worldview thesis to the academic community because it just involves too many different concepts. I need to focus in on something more narrow for now, and the best way to start is with a better theory of knowledge. Phenomenology is this because it is science-like but instead of strictly being objective it involves the first person experiences that science does not deal with. It is this subjective knowledge, and the construction of intersubjective knowledge, that I believe is very important for forming a more enlightened worldview.

So this is my last posting for a while. I am still available to answer emails at brandon@enlightenedworldview.com and I look forward to hearing from you.

It is quite amazing how computers these days can perform complex tasks so fast. They can do so many things and our lives now vitally depend on them for communication, economic well-being, personal health, entertainment, etc. The performance of computers gets faster and more efficient every year, and the number of things they can do and our dependence on them seems to grow day by day.

This technology seems magical, but we should know that these machines work within the confines of physical reality. Advanced technology like this only becomes possible when intelligent people figure out how to do these things, not when sorcerers chant magical spells. So this means that there must be some limit to what is possible through modern technology.

It does seem like anything can be made possible though advanced technology. It seems like anything and every possible fanciful idea that one might think of, like traveling through time or spaceships that can take us to the ends of the universe, will one day be possible given the right technological advances, which seem inevitable. Now, it seems like this is the case because we generally don't understand much about the technology that we have and we generally don't know much about the laws of physics.

In truth, technology does have its limits and there are good arguments to be made for why time travel is impossible and why the kind of space travel we see in science fiction movies is highly improbable if not altogether impossible. But what, then, is the limit of technology with regard to machine intelligence? Will there be a day when humans can create a machine that truly has human-like intelligence and is almost indistinguishable from a real human?

Though this is a frightening though for many, the explosive growth of machine intelligence strongly suggests that this will happen before too long, likely within our lifetime. The most advanced computers can already function in many of the same ways that human minds can. They are able to interpret their environment and form conceptions of how things work that are quite accurate. They are able to understand, to a large extent, human language from just observing. They are able to pick up on social norms of humans and are programmed to mimic them as any young human would.

Now, these robots are quite limited in the speed of their processing and the capacity to learn. They are not able to conceptualize anywhere near as much of reality as humans can and their command of language and emotional and social relationships is severely limited. These limitations, however, are probably just temporary. Sooner or later, there will be androids that are advanced enough to act as any human does to the point where real humans cannot tell the difference.

There are many important questions that arise from this realization. For one thing, this brings into question what it means to be human. If there are robots that can act as any human to the point where real humans might be convinced that the robots are real, then how can one say that these robots are not, in fact, real humans? If such robots could indeed conceptualize reality as humans and have all other cognitive capacities of humans, do then also have a first person experience of consciousness as humans do? What are the ethical implications of making these robots?

My answer to the first question is that if such beings did exist that they would not be humans for the simple reason that they are, in fact, robots. Now, this does not mean that human attributes, such as consciousness, do not apply. I have said in previous postings that I believe that there is a nonphysical aspect of human consciousness and I also believe that this is facilitated when a physical being has the necessary functional properties for body-soul interaction. I concluded this because I believe that only a nonphysical soul can actually experience consciousness in the first person and that therefore human bodies must have an interaction between body and soul. I believe it would be quite similar for robots just as long as they have all of the same functional properties to facilitate body-soul interaction. So by implication, one could one day build a robot that could not only function as a human does, but could also have a soul.

Now, what are the ethical implications of this? I actually think that the ethical implications are not as great as they may seem. To me, this is not entirely unlike the phenomenon where a man and a woman bring a new human into the world through procreation. The only real ethical implications, as I see it, are that once such a being is created, that it would actually have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just as any other human does.

So, in summary, artificial intelligence will likely one day progress to where robots will exist that are indistinguishable from organic humans and will, by extension, have conscious experience and souls just as humans do. Because of this, we will have to respect their natural rights, just as we should for all humans.

So we're all familiar with what angels are, right? Winged creatures, maybe with halos above their heads, sent from heaven to deliver messages, and living in heaven singing praises. We have all seen images like these in religious art. A lot of people believe in angels. The Bible talks about them and even mentions specific high ranking angels. But what are angels? Do they exist?

My understanding of the concept of angels is probably similar to most people. We all see images of them in art. These days it is often some advertisement that we see a drawing of what is supposed to be an angel. Now, I was raised Catholic and I believed in angels when I was young just as I believed in most of the myths that I was taught in my youth. I was taught specifically that everyone has a “guardian angel” who is supposed to protect us from harm. This believe I guess comes from a Bible verse that tells of angels guarding us. It does not say that each of us is assigned his or her own angel for life, as I was told.

My mother took this angel believe quite seriously and would pray to them. We were taught to pray to our angels as follows: “Angel of God my guardian dear, to whom God's love entrusts me here, ever this day be at my side, to light and guard, to rule and guide.” My mother would often attribute our safety to the work of our angels. Like if someone almost got injured or something, she would think that someone's angel intervened and prevented harm. Also on days when she was for some reason unable to go to mass (Catholic church service), she would make a request to her angel to go to mass in place of her. If the car was not working on a Sunday or my parents were sick or something, or if we were just too busy she would say to us “I sent my angel to mass, you kids send your angels as well.”

The modern Catholic conception of angels is quite different from the original conception in Biblical times. These creatures were really not thought of as having wings going back that far. They were, however, thought of as being spiritual creatures that were kind of like deities. I was taught about archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, each of whom has special powers. Michael fights evil, Gabriel delivers messages, and Raphael comforts those in suffering. The legends of these three go way back, even before Judaism emerged as a monotheistic religion around 1500 BC.

Actually, it is interesting to note that the Bible also mentions Azrael as an archangel, though he is supposed to be the angel of death. The modern interpretation is that Azrael is another name for Satan. This was certainly not what people thought in Biblical times. They thought of Azrael as a real spirit, but not entirely evil like Satan.

So the legend of angels really goes even further back than the Bible and stems originally from primitive beliefs in supernatural creatures that have special powers, like lower level Gods. It is pretty ludicrous to believe in these mythical creatures in today's age. The concept of angels is one of the most obvious examples that the Bible is unreliable and that Judaism and Christianity were both evolved from earlier primitive religions of tribal peoples who made up myths to try to understand the world. They made up supernatural creatures to explain things and to think that somehow they had access to the supernatural workings if they could get on good terms with these creatures.

This is all pretty silly stuff. Jews, Christians, and Muslims today actually often have beliefs that stem from these primitive beliefs. They might try to eliminate these beliefs, but this is tough unless they want to take an honest critical look at their worldview and their holy scriptures.

I was brought up in a Catholic household. From an early age I went to mass every week and learned the rituals and prayers and traditions of the church. I learned many Bible stories including the creation story, several stories about Jesus, and stories about the history of the Jewish people. I also learned a moral system through which the rightness of actions was in large part thought to be determined by what is in concert with God's will.

For anyone raised in a given religion as I have, the detailed aspects of the religion tend to form the early developing mind in a way that really makes children see everything through the lens of their religion. As they grow older, their religious upbringing will probably be the single most influential series of experiences in their life. Even if they try to break away from this religion later in life, this is done in relation to the religion of one's youth.

Now, as I have written about in prior posts and as many other authors have explained in detail, there are many religious beliefs that are harmful to people and to society. This applies to some religions more than others, but this is true at least to some extent to all religions that largely rely on blind faith. Yes, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do indeed rely heavily on blind faith. Hinduism also relies on blind faith at least on par with the Abrahamic faiths. Buddhism probably has less reliance on blind faith, but is not immune to the phenomenon where children are taught to believe things just because.

All of these religions involve beliefs that are to be taken on blind faith that are harmful to people. Young minds are not able to know the difference so for nearly all children brought up in a faith based religion, they will end up with beliefs that are harmful to them or to others. This may include beliefs that they are the chosen people over others, this may include beliefs that only people who believe as they do are in concert with God, this may include beliefs that some people are born in a higher caste than others, and this may include beliefs that there ultimately is no true self. All of these beliefs are harmful to people and are quite popular beliefs within certain faith based religions.

I don't have children, but when I do I am actually thinking that they would benefit from not simply being told from a young age to believe in things just because. I don't think children should be taught to believe anything on blind faith, include belief in the Bible or in this mystical Jesus figure. Many millions (or even billions) are told to believe in certain scriptures or supernatural things from an early age and I think that this practice is a disservice to the developing mind.

Some will argue that children brought up with a religion are better off later in life because they have a more solid moral structure. From my experience, it took me several years to unwind the strict Catholicism that I was force-fed throughout my childhood, so I disagree with the idea that children are better off being raised in some organized religion just for the sake of having some organized belief system to provide them with. I am wondering - would it be so bad to simply lay out the facts for the children (or better yet, lay out the most reasonable principles for finding facts) and let them figure out what to believe?

I believe that this is possible. Certainly it makes sense to begin to teach children right and wrong from a young age and that young children do not yet have the ability to think critically about things so they need to simply be told what to believe. This is true, but it is the wrong idea to try to teach children things for which there is no real evidence in the world. If we just teach children things for which they can find evidence and for which they can understand makes sense, then they will have an easier time later in life thinking critically and realizing the truth for themselves. Also they should be more likely to avoid the pitfalls of believing things just because they were told to.

Some people who don't subscribe to any religion self-identify as Humanists. Humanism is a worldview that emphasizes the value of humanity and social justice while altogether rejecting supernatural concepts and religious dogma. This worldview has become increasingly popular in recent years as people come to realize how unjustified and harmful religious beliefs and practices can often be and also because of the natural tendency of people to empathize with fellow humans.

To be fair, the definition mentioned above might be too restrictive to refer to “Humanism” in general. This definition might more accurately refer to “Secular Humanism”, while just saying “Humanism” in some contexts might refer more generally to concern for humanity while not necessarily rejecting religion. The reason that I started this post the way I did is because many Secular Humanists simply use the term “Humanist” without qualification. This post will be focused on the worldview that emphasizes humanity and social justice while rejecting religion and supernatural beliefs, so for clarity, I will use the less ambiguous term “Secular Humanism” from this point on.

One of the most popular arguments in favor of Secular Humanism are that revealed religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, encourage unjustified beliefs and practices that are often quite harmful to believers and to society. I agree with this argument to a large extent. I have rejected traditional faith based religions. On the other hand though, I do not reject belief in anything supernatural because the natural universe is not an explanation for itself. The best explanation is that the natural universe was created by something that is over and above nature, and this is a supernatural concept.

This concept may be called God, but this does not mean that for one to believe this that they must have blind faith in God as a Christian or Muslim does. There is a reasonable justification for believing this and thus blind faith is not necessary. This is one strike against the Secular Humanist worldview.

Another common argument of Secular Humanists is that there is value to human life and it is unjust when people suffer unnecessarily. The argument is that we should have concern for our fellow humans and work to prevent social injustice whenever possible. I also agree with this notion because my phenomenological and scientific reasoning has led me to the conclusion that people have the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This reasoning is rooted in the realization of the nonphysical aspect of humanity, which is called the soul. There is also an important realization that souls have free will, which is a supernatural concept because there are no natural processes through which all actions of souls, and by extension humans, can be reduced to. Finally there is the realization that the first person experience of right and wrong has a nonphysical aspect as well.

Secular Humanism seems to reject the metaphysics upon which the natural rights are based. This worldview does not actually provide a metaphysical foundation for its emphasis on humanity and social justice. These are just taken as a given as true within a purely physical universe. As I have argued in prior posts, there is no way that morality, and by extension natural justice, can be real aspects of the universe regardless of anyone's mere personal opinion unless they are based on some form of nonphysical metaphysics. Quite simply, if everything that exists is physical, then there is no inherent right or wrong, there is just the way things are. The physical universe is not at all concerned with social justice or humanity per se.

If one is truly concerned about humanity and believes in natural rights, and also believes that there is inherent truth to their moral convictions as opposed to mere opinion, then it is rational to find a metaphysical foundation for morality that can incorporate this. Rejection of anything supernatural and strict belief in materialism does not allow for a foundation of morality that can be true regardless of anyone's point of view. Secular Humanism is not a coherent worldview in essence. A worldview that includes belief in a nonphysical aspect of the self is more rational and I believe more justified given the scientific and phenomenological evidence.